• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Using evolution to justify bigotry

No response to my post at the top of this page which Destroyed your outrageous claim/s.
Zero.

As to your new attempt. Nonsense pt II.
No one claims a single/simple mutation is a separate Race/subspecies, and you could Not make a Race out of them.
In fact, Phenotype, like Race/subspecies are SETS of features, tho to a lesser degree than the latter.
Races take thousands++ years to develop.
They are not overnight mutations within like 'Blue Eyes.'
(we occasionally see this disingenuous PC attempt)

So that in a room with 300 Naked people: 100 Pygmies, 100 Scandinavians, and 100 NE Asians, one could easily tell them apart.
Even if a Pygmy was an Albino he would easily discernable from the other groups by the SETS of features that make Race/subspecies.
Along the same line, a Pygmy couple could Not hatch a Christie Brinkley, or Ban Ki Moon.
Race/subspecies is not a One-Generation accident/mutation, but SETS of features born of Milennia of separate evolution.

You make preposterous claims one after the other: 3 or 4 I busted in my unanswered last.
`

I actually used to be of Napolean's view point... but then I figured out the evidence just simply does not support it.
 
There is no genomic difference. There is no objective scientific basis for using phenotypes to categorize humans into races. We may just as well be using eye color or the shape of everyone's toenails instead of skin color because at the end of the day all you're going to find is confirmation bias. Humans have a natural inclination to categorize things, but there is no scientific reason to get this granular.

Really? Yet one can look at DNA and figure out where your ancestors came from?

World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png
 
Really? Yet one can look at DNA and figure out where your ancestors came from?

[b]Needless quote/repeat of graphic broken[/b] htt://upload.wi..[/QUOTE]Absolutely, and as I said on the last page And this one, many do it every day.
NatGeo's Genographic Project uses 11.
23andMe and Ancestry.com probably use similar numbers to tell you what Percent of each group you are.
One doesn't have to break it down into as many groups as your attempt to muddy the waters. (tho one could)

What's also amazing/Stupendous is that Self-Identification of [Larger] Races is 99+% accurate.
Below using just four major ones.

[b]Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies[/b]
[url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/[/url]
Hua Tang,1 Tom Quertermous,2 Beatriz Rodriguez,4 Sharon L. R. Kardia,5
Xiaofeng Zhu,6 Andrew Brown,7 James S. Pankow,8 Michael A. Province,9
Steven C. Hunt,10 Eric Boerwinkle,11 Nicholas J. Schork,12 and Neil J. Risch3,13

[indent]Abstract
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). [u]Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of Four Major racial/ethnic groups[/u] (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan.

Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, [b]which showed near-Perfect correspondence with the Four Self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.[/b] On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, [u]ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population[/u]. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.[/indent]
`
 
Last edited:
Sigh. She is not promoting any kind of bigotry. She is saying that science does not support the conclusions people desire society to accept. It's all fine and good to say people should be treated equally under the law, but it's an entirely different thing to suggest that there is no differences between the sexes.

and that's where the whole problem lies. Instead of accentuating what makes the sexes the same -- those traits we share -- we're expected to turn make-believe into reality by accepting the asinine idea that there is no difference. Like, if we just ignore the differences, close our eyes so to speak, any and all discrimination will *Poof!* (Ninja magic) disappear.
 
Absolutely, and as I said on the last page And this one, many do it every day.
NatGeo's Genographic Project uses 11.
23andMe and Ancestry.com probably use similar numbers to tell you what Percent of each group you are.
One doesn't have to break it down into as many groups as your attempt to muddy the waters. (tho one could)

What's also amazing/Stupendous is that Self-Identification of [Larger] Races is 99+% accurate.
Below using just four major ones.

Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Hua Tang,1 Tom Quertermous,2 Beatriz Rodriguez,4 Sharon L. R. Kardia,5
Xiaofeng Zhu,6 Andrew Brown,7 James S. Pankow,8 Michael A. Province,9
Steven C. Hunt,10 Eric Boerwinkle,11 Nicholas J. Schork,12 and Neil J. Risch3,13

Abstract
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of Four Major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan.

Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-Perfect correspondence with the Four Self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.​
`

WTH is your point?
 
...Depending how far back you go. Current DNA-based thinking is that around a hundred humans left Africa arond 50-60,000 years ago. We are all descended from them, other than those who remained in Africa.

Almost all living people outside of Africa trace back to a single migration more than 50,000 years ago | Science | AAAS

and moreover, the entire human race may have been down to only a thousand or so breeding age adults at one time:

How Human Beings Almost Vanished From Earth In 70,000 B.C.
There is not a whole lot of genetic diversity in the species homo sapiens.
 
and moreover, the entire human race may have been down to only a thousand or so breeding age adults at one time:
How Human Beings Almost Vanished From Earth In 70,000 B.C.

There is Not a whole lot of genetic diversity in the species homo sapiens.
About as much Diversity as many others, and More than some who Do have delimitation as subspecies/Races: including our nearest relatives.

Is Homo sapiens polytypic?
Human taxonomic diversity and its implications
Michael A. Woodley
School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, UK (2009/2010)
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files....-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf
[........]
Based on Table 2, it is evident that the ‘H. sapiens as monotypic species’ theory is INconsistent with the way in which taxonomic classification has been employed for Other species exhibiting similar degrees of heterozygosity.

Chimpanzees for example exhibit very similar degrees of observed heterozygosity to humans (0.63–0.73 vs. 0.588–0.807) yet have been divided into Four subspecies.

Some species such as the Grey Wolf actually exhibit Lower levels of observed heterozygosity than humans (0.528 vs. 0.588– 0.807) yet have been divided into as many as 37 subspecies.

When measures of Genetic distance are used such as Wright’s FsT, which describes the fraction of the variation attributable to population subdivision, values indicative of Great Levels of Genetic Differentiation have been obtained for Humans (0.156) based on the analysis of autosomal loci [39] (great levels of genetic differentiation correspond to values of between 0.15 and 0.25 [40]).
This contrasts with scores indicative of little to moderate levels of genetic differentiation in other animals (again obtained by looking at autosomal loci), such as the Canadian lynx (0.033) [28], which is recognized as having three subspecies, and the African buffalo (0.059) [24], which is recognized as having five subspecies.

A relevant question to ask at this stage is how many subspecies comprise H. sapiens?
Traditionally, anthropologists have recognized four great races on morphological grounds (Congoid or ‘Negroid’, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid) with Capoid (SE Africans) sometimes described as a fifth [41]. Molecular data have resulted in this structure being modified slightly with the analysis of classical and other genetic markers consistently revealing the presence of around five continental populations (major clades or races) in the form of
SubSaharan Africans, Caucasians (European and Non-European), NE (Greater) Asians, SE Asians and Pacific Islanders (includes Australopapuans) and Amerindians [42–45]. Subspecies identified cladistically not only compliment the definition of race as correlation structure, but also present an adequate solution to the problem of arbitrariness in traditional taxonomic approaches to the classification of human racial diversity [45,46].
[... ! ! ! ...]
Table 4 would seem to suggest that the Sub-Saharan African (Bantu) and Australopapuan (Aborigine) genetic difference as measured by SNP’s is Greater than the genetic distance between both the two species of gorilla (Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei), and greater than the distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo as measured by mtDNA."

"On the basis of this Fuerle suggests that there are only two consistent courses of action to take regarding re-classification – splitting or lumping. Either H. sapiens could be split into two Species – Homo africanus which would encompass modern African populations and Homo eurasianensis which would encompass Eurasian populations; making the genus Homo consistent in his view, species-wise with respect to other genera in which the differences between species are expressed in terms of much smaller genetic distances; or alternatively the genetic variability within the human species could be used to typologically define the absolute limits of what constitutes a vertebrate species, which could then be employed as a taxonomic baseline in the classification of other species. This would mean lumping the two gorilla species and the chimpanzee and the bonobo as single species."
[.......]


Though even based on that very informative/startling SNP/mtDNA differential, Neither I or the paper are suggesting separate species for humans, but certainly separate subspecies/Races is not in doubt.
 
Last edited:
About as much Diversity as many others, and More than some who Do have delimitation as subspecies/Races: including our nearest relatives.

Is Homo sapiens polytypic?
Human taxonomic diversity and its implications
Michael A. Woodley
School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, UK (2009/2010)
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files....-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf
[........]
Based on Table 2, it is evident that the ‘H. sapiens as monotypic species’ theory is INconsistent with the way in which taxonomic classification has been employed for Other species exhibiting similar degrees of heterozygosity.

Chimpanzees for example exhibit very similar degrees of observed heterozygosity to humans (0.63–0.73 vs. 0.588–0.807) yet have been divided into Four subspecies.

Some species such as the Grey Wolf actually exhibit Lower levels of observed heterozygosity than humans (0.528 vs. 0.588– 0.807) yet have been divided into as many as 37 subspecies.

When measures of Genetic distance are used such as Wright’s FsT, which describes the fraction of the variation attributable to population subdivision, values indicative of Great Levels of Genetic Differentiation have been obtained for Humans (0.156) based on the analysis of autosomal loci [39] (great levels of genetic differentiation correspond to values of between 0.15 and 0.25 [40]).
This contrasts with scores indicative of little to moderate levels of genetic differentiation in other animals (again obtained by looking at autosomal loci), such as the Canadian lynx (0.033) [28], which is recognized as having three subspecies, and the African buffalo (0.059) [24], which is recognized as having five subspecies.

A relevant question to ask at this stage is how many subspecies comprise H. sapiens?
Traditionally, anthropologists have recognized four great races on morphological grounds (Congoid or ‘Negroid’, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid) with Capoid (SE Africans) sometimes described as a fifth [41]. Molecular data have resulted in this structure being modified slightly with the analysis of classical and other genetic markers consistently revealing the presence of around five continental populations (major clades or races) in the form of
SubSaharan Africans, Caucasians (European and Non-European), NE (Greater) Asians, SE Asians and Pacific Islanders (includes Australopapuans) and Amerindians [42–45]. Subspecies identified cladistically not only compliment the definition of race as correlation structure, but also present an adequate solution to the problem of arbitrariness in traditional taxonomic approaches to the classification of human racial diversity [45,46].
[... ! ! ! ...]
Table 4 would seem to suggest that the Sub-Saharan African (Bantu) and Australopapuan (Aborigine) genetic difference as measured by SNP’s is Greater than the genetic distance between both the two species of gorilla (Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei), and greater than the distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo as measured by mtDNA."

"On the basis of this Fuerle suggests that there are only two consistent courses of action to take regarding re-classification – splitting or lumping. Either H. sapiens could be split into two Species – Homo africanus which would encompass modern African populations and Homo eurasianensis which would encompass Eurasian populations; making the genus Homo consistent in his view, species-wise with respect to other genera in which the differences between species are expressed in terms of much smaller genetic distances; or alternatively the genetic variability within the human species could be used to typologically define the absolute limits of what constitutes a vertebrate species, which could then be employed as a taxonomic baseline in the classification of other species. This would mean lumping the two gorilla species and the chimpanzee and the bonobo as single species."
[.......]


Though even based on that very informative/startling SNP/mtDNA differential, Neither I or the paper are suggesting separate species for humans, but certainly separate subspecies/Races is not in doubt.


There have been other species that have been on the brink of Extinction. Of course they have low diversity also.
 
There have been other species that have been on the brink of Extinction. Of course they have low diversity also.
That's NON-responsive to my post which points out in No uncertain Quantitative terms, we have plenty enough diversity relative to other Species, Subspecies/Races.
Indeed, why did you quote if you Cannot answer?
You just reiterated your categorically Busted position of low diversity.

Humans were easily/exceptionally able to acquire our diversity due to our mobility into Vastly different environments, Unlike Chimps and Gorillas who never left Central West Africa, but nonetheless Each have two separate Species, and each with additional subspecies/Races.
 
Last edited:
That's NON-responsive to my post which points out in No uncertain Quantitative terms, we have plenty enough diversity relative to other Species, Subspecies/Races.
Indeed, why did you quote if you Cannot answer?
You just reiterated your categorically Busted position of low diversity

Humans were easily/exceptionally able to acquire our diversity due to our mobility into Vastly different environments, Unlike Chimps and Gorillas who never left Central West Africa, but nonetheless Each have two separate Species, and each with additional subspecies/Races.

There are other species that have a low diversity as well.
Homo sapiens has a low genetic diversity, most likely due to having been down to a small number of individuals not so long ago.
Compared to most other species, however, we have a low genetic diversity.
 
There are other species that have a low diversity as well.
Homo sapiens has a low genetic diversity, most likely due to having been down to a small number of individuals not so long ago.
Compared to most other species, however, we have a low genetic diversity.
Again: We do NOT have 'low diversity' relative to many (perhaps most) other species which have subspecies/Races: including our closest Primate relatives.
I elaborated on that in NO uncertain, and Quantitative terms. (WTF!)
(and if humans life got bottle-necked by Toba, so probably did ALL other Primate/much-other life)
Address/rebut those passages or fold, but do stop the denialist trolling to what was posted.
You just keep reiterating your Busted position.
 
Last edited:
Again: We do NOT have 'low diversity' relative to many (perhaps most) other species which have subspecies/Races: including our closest Primate relatives.
I elaborated on that in NO uncertain, and Quantitative terms. (WTF!)
(and if humans life got bottle-necked by Toba, so probably did ALL other Primate/much-other life)
Address/rebut those passages or fold, but do stop the denialist trolling to what was posted.
You just keep reiterating your Busted position.

Not that it really matters, but you're wrong.

People today look remarkably diverse on the outside. But how much of this diversity is genetically encoded? How deep are these differences between human groups? First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is much greater than that between human populations.

source: Smithsonian Museum of Natural History
 
Not that it really matters, but you're wrong.
About as much Diversity as many others, and More than some who Do have delimitation as subspecies/Races: including our nearest relatives.

Is Homo sapiens polytypic?
Human taxonomic diversity and its implications
Michael A. Woodley
School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, UK (2009/2010)
[url]https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf
[........]
Based on Table 2, it is evident that the ‘H. sapiens as monotypic species’ theory is INconsistent with the way in which taxonomic classification has been employed for Other species exhibiting similar degrees of heterozygosity.

Chimpanzees for example exhibit very similar degrees of observed heterozygosity to humans (0.63–0.73 vs. 0.588–0.807) yet have been divided into Four subspecies.

Some species such as the Grey Wolf actually exhibit Lower levels of observed heterozygosity than humans (0.528 vs. 0.588– 0.807) yet have been divided into as many as 37 subspecies.

When measures of Genetic distance are used such as Wright’s FsT, which describes the fraction of the variation attributable to population subdivision, values indicative of Great Levels of Genetic Differentiation have been obtained for Humans (0.156) based on the analysis of autosomal loci [39] (great levels of genetic differentiation correspond to values of between 0.15 and 0.25 [40]).
This contrasts with scores indicative of little to moderate levels of genetic differentiation in other animals (again obtained by looking at autosomal loci), such as the Canadian lynx (0.033) [28], which is recognized as having three subspecies, and the African buffalo (0.059) [24], which is recognized as having five subspecies.


A relevant question to ask at this stage is how many subspecies comprise H. sapiens?
Traditionally, anthropologists have recognized four great races on morphological grounds (Congoid or ‘Negroid’, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid) with Capoid (SE Africans) sometimes described as a fifth [41]. Molecular data have resulted in this structure being modified slightly with the analysis of classical and other genetic markers consistently revealing the presence of around five continental populations (major clades or races) in the form of
SubSaharan Africans, Caucasians (European and Non-European), NE (Greater) Asians, SE Asians and Pacific Islanders (includes Australopapuans) and Amerindians [42–45]. Subspecies identified cladistically not only compliment the definition of race as correlation structure, but also present an adequate solution to the problem of arbitrariness in traditional taxonomic approaches to the classification of human racial diversity [45,46].
[.. ! ! ..]
Table 4 would seem to suggest that the Sub-Saharan African (Bantu) and Australopapuan (Aborigine) genetic difference as measured by SNP’s is Greater than the genetic distance between both the two species of gorilla (Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei), and greater than the distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo as measured by mtDNA."

"On the basis of this Fuerle suggests that there are only two consistent courses of action to take regarding re-classification – splitting or lumping. Either H. sapiens could be split into two Species – Homo africanus which would encompass modern African populations and Homo eurasianensis which would encompass Eurasian populations; making the genus Homo consistent in his view, species-wise with respect to other genera in which the differences between species are expressed in terms of much smaller genetic distances; or alternatively the genetic variability within the human species could be used to typologically define the absolute limits of what constitutes a vertebrate species, which could then be employed as a taxonomic baseline in the classification of other species. This would mean lumping the two gorilla species and the chimpanzee and the bonobo as single species."
[...]


Though even based on that very informative/startling SNP/mtDNA differential, Neither I or the paper are suggesting separate species for humans, but certainly separate subspecies/Races is not in doubt.
 
AGAIN:
Asked and answered in detail using Heterozygosity, mtDNA, SNP, Fst, and our relative differential to other species, especially our Closest Relatives: Chimps and Gorillas, (ETC) who according to your (OOOPS) rationale somehow escaped Toba's bottleneck!
Many more Charts available.
Too bad I made you have to spend a few minutes finding a link. but you just kept repeating your Busted proposition.

My bad. You obviously know more than the Smithsonian.
 
Table 4 would seem to suggest that the Sub-Saharan African (Bantu) and Australopapuan (Aborigine) genetic difference as measured by SNP’s is Greater than the genetic distance between both the two species of gorilla (Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei), and greater than the distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo as measured by mtDNA."

"On the basis of this Fuerle suggests that there are only two consistent courses of action to take regarding re-classification – splitting or lumping. Either H. sapiens could be split into two Species – Homo africanus which would encompass modern African populations and Homo eurasianensis which would encompass Eurasian populations; making the genus Homo consistent in his view, species-wise with respect to other genera in which the differences between species are expressed in terms of much smaller genetic distances; or alternatively the genetic variability within the human species could be used to typologically define the absolute limits of what constitutes a vertebrate species, which could then be employed as a taxonomic baseline in the classification of other species. This would mean lumping the two gorilla species and the chimpanzee and the bonobo as single species."
[.......][/indent]

Though even based on that very informative/startling SNP/mtDNA differential, Neither I or the paper are suggesting separate species for humans, but certainly separate subspecies/Races is not in doubt.

As I understand it, one of the defining characteristics that makes a “species” is that members can interbreed and produce offspring capable of breeding. It sort of seems more logical (assuming that) to fold the gorillas and bonobos together.
 
As I understand it, one of the defining characteristics that makes a “species” is that members can interbreed and produce offspring capable of breeding. It sort of seems more logical (assuming that) to fold the gorillas and bonobos together.

Yes, that's the generally agreed upon definition of a species.

Bonobos are genus pan, while gorillas are genus gorilla. They not only are separate species, they're separate genus as well.
 
As I understand it, one of the defining characteristics that makes a “species” is that members can interbreed and produce offspring capable of breeding. It sort of seems more logical (assuming that) to fold the gorillas and bonobos together.
True, but I don't understand your point. The point of the author was merely to show the great distance among humans, relative to other Primate species/subspecies which do have delimitation.
The latter, species part, was to show the largest case of difference. So one could indeed do ALOT of folding throughout the plant and animal kingdoms were one to ignore the difference, as we have for political, not taxonomic reasons, in humans.
 
Back
Top Bottom